Opinion
E067130
09-18-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD HENRY SOLIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1604101) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 22, 2016, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Richard Henry Solis with evading a peace officer under Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (count 1); driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage under Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (count 2); and driving an unregistered car under Vehicle Code section 4000, subdivision (a) (count 3). The complaint also alleged that defendant suffered four prior strike convictions under Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), and 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(2)(A). The complaint further alleged that defendant suffered three prior prison convictions under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On August 31, 2016, defendant pled guilty to count 1, and admitted the truth of one prior strike conviction and one prior prison conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 44 months on count 1, calculated as 16 months on count 1, doubled to 32 months due to the strike, and a consecutive 12 months for the prison prior. Among other fees and fines, the court ordered defendant to pay a $40 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373.
On October 27, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
As a factual basis for his guilty plea, defendant admitted that on August 18, 2016, he "did something that caught the police['s] attention. They tried to stop [him], lights and sirens; [he] didn't stop; and [he] drove dangerously around Riverside County[.]"
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court's orally-pronounced judgment regarding a court operations assessment and a criminal conviction assessment. Specifically, defendant argues that because he sustained a single conviction for one count, the $80 assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8, and the $60 assessment under Government Code section 70373, as reflected in the abstract of judgment and minute order, were unauthorized, and must be reduced to the statutorily authorized amounts of $40 and $30, respectively. The People agree with defendant.
In this case, the reporter's transcript shows that following defendant's guilty plea to count 1, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison on count 1, and imposed various fines and fees, including a $40 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. However, the abstract of judgment and minute order failed to reflect the judgment as orally pronounced by the trial court. Instead, the minute order states that the court sentenced defendant on counts 1 and 2, and imposed a "court operations assessment" under Penal Code section 1464.8 of $80, and a "criminal conviction assessment fee" under Government Code section 70373 of $60. Moreover, although the abstract of judgment correctly reflects that defendant was convicted solely of count 1, it also incorrectly reflects a "court operation assessment" under "PC § 1464.8" of $80, and a "conviction assessment" under "Gov. Code, § 70373" of $60. On December 8, 2016, defendant submitted a letter to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment. On the same date, the trial court denied the request.
Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), authorizes a $40 court operations assessment, and Government Code section 70373 authorizes a $30 criminal conviction assessment, to be imposed on every felony conviction. Here, defendant was convicted of one count. The abstract of judgment, therefore, should be corrected to reflect the trial court's correct order at the sentencing hearing wherein the court imposed a $40 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 and a $30 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) If the judgment fails to reflect the court's pronounced judgment, the record can be corrected at any time without the necessity of a remand to reflect the actual oral judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 8, 13.) Therefore, we correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court's imposition of the appropriate assessment.
DISPOSITION
The abstract of judgment is modified to reflect a $40 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 and a $30 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. The superior court clerk is directed to forward certified copies of the modified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.